My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_960214
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
199x
>
1996
>
pm_960214
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:34:35 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 7:56:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/14/1996
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />February 14, 1996 <br /> <br />concern. We need to review the traffic accident reports in this area. She explained that a <br />self contained neighborhood with a park may be a good concept. She also explained that <br />this is an excellent starter neighborhood for residents who want to remain in Roseville. <br />She asked if the homes could be moved into a different configuration. Shardlow <br />responded that it is financially not feasible to move many and the strategy should be to <br />move as few homes as possible but to gain better access first. Member Rhody explained <br />that he felt this neighborhood is a strong neighborhood but had problems at the edges and <br />that the City should attempt to solve the traffic problems along the edges first. Wietecki <br />summarized the options: <br /> <br />1) Do nothing. <br />2) Look at the egress/ingress at the edges. <br />3) Zone the entire area as a mixed use development. <br />4) The City buys the entire site. <br /> <br />He recommended that the City and neighborhood hold neighborhood meetings on the <br />improvements to the egress and ingress at the edges of the neighborhood and work with <br />the neighbors to review the 20 year land use plan for this area and answer questions about <br />the future. Member Thein agreed and asked that a series of meetings include what would <br />be a 5 or 10 year timeframe and what would happen in that period of time. Neighbors <br />should be asked that in 20 years, what are the options that they see. Shardlow explained <br />that the City needs to consider a reinvestment in the housing stock in some format and <br />that the City needs to demonstrate a commitment. A general consensus of the Planning <br />Commission was to direct the staff to prepare a synopsis of this discussion and to send it <br />to the Planning Commission for review and comment, prior to sending a formal report to <br />the Council for their Work Session in March. <br /> <br />No further action was taken. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />(b) <br /> <br />Housine Density/Housinl: Desi2n <br /> <br />The Planning Commission received a housing density/housing design presentation from <br />John Shardlow. The Commission agreed to hold a field trip in April or May, at which <br />time they will review housing design issues throughout the metropolitan area. No further <br />action was taken. <br /> <br />Information, Reports, and Other Business <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />(a) <br /> <br />Report on Conditional Use Permits in Business Districts adjacent to <br />Residential Districts <br /> <br />In a written report to the Planning Commission, City Planner Michael Falk described the <br />issues regarding business uses adjacent to residential districts. He suggested that one <br />method of protecting the residential area would be by creating a 350 foot overlay district. <br />A general discussion ensued regarding the need for additional regulation and the planning <br /> <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.